Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/bridge: waveshare-dsi: Add support for 1..4 DSI data lanes

[Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org>]

On 3/3/26 2:32 PM, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Tue Mar 3, 2026 at 1:59 PM CET, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 3/3/26 8:56 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 10:35:31PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/26 12:48 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> On 1/15/26 3:39 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>> Parse the data lane count out of DT. Limit the supported data lanes
>>>>>> to 1..4 which is the maximum available DSI pairs on the connector of
>>>>>> any known panels which may use this bridge. Internally, this bridge
>>>>>> is an ChipOne ICN6211 which loads its register configuration from a
>>>>>> dedicated storage and its I2C does not seem to be accessible. The
>>>>>> ICN6211 also supports up to 4 DSI lanes, so this is a hard limit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To avoid any breakage on old DTs where the parsing of data lanes from
>>>>>> DT may fail, fall back to the original hard-coded value of 2 lanes and
>>>>>> warn user.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lane configuration is preconfigured in the bridge for each of the
>>>>>> WaveShare panels. The 13.3" DSI panel works with 4-lane configuration,
>>>>>> others seem to use 2-lane configuration. This is a hardware property,
>>>>>> so the actual count should come from DT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Joseph Guo <qijian.guo@nxp.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it OK to apply these two patches now ?
>>>>
>>>> Can this be applied now ?
>>>
>>> It looks like you have a reviewed-by already, what's stoping you from
>>> applying it yourself?
>> I generally try to avoid applying my own patches, but if that is OK
>> here, I will apply them ?
> 
> I fid it a bit weird as well, but it's the common practice in drm-misc, so
> I do it when there are enough R-by / A-by.
> 
> One thing I'm never sure about is the definition of "enough R-by / A-by"
> though. I used to kind of assume at least a maintainer listed in
> MAINTAINERS should approve the patch. But that also seems not a rule for
> drm-misc, at least for patches that impact only a specific driver and not
> core or otherwise shared code, and/or which look "obviously correct".
> 
> Based on the above, I'm applying this series right now.
Thank you